RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.86 #10 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
I may have been unclear — since that wasn’t necessarily my main point in the post — so let me clarify.
When the photographer (or his/her printer in the case of some folks like HCB) makes a print from film, they virtually always engage in some darkroom post-processing. Let’s use dodging and burning as an example. (Perhaps some have seen the extensive mark-ups on test images that record how to do this in specific photos.) Because all of this is done manually by doing things like waving shadow-creating tools (and/or hands!) over the paper under the enlarger, it is impossible to do it the same way twice in a row, and there are inevitable differences between two copies of the same print. And that’s not the only source — it is virtually impossible to get every print out of and into the next bath with perfectly identical timing, etc.
(This is different than the evolution of the photographer’s interpretation of the print over time. There are some remarkable examples of how that changes over the decades, but I digress…)
Consequently, at the high end of the print market, it isn’t enough to own, say, _any_ print of “Moonrise, Hernandez…,” but people actually value specific iterations of the print more than others. And if you were to look at them side by side, you’d see the differences, too.
That is not to say that when we run 20 copies of a print on or inkjet printers that there are literally no differences among them. However, I’m positive that if I took them out in a particular order, shuffled them, and then asked someone to put them back in order based on the differences that it would be impossible unless there was a printer failure or similar. I know that I couldn’t tell by looking at a series of m own prints and I know them better than anyone. (In fact, I’d say that these differences are even smaller than the theoretical differences between the results from using the “best pop” lens and using the second-best pop lens…. ;-)
Make sense?...Show more →
I think you missed the aspect that Moonrise iterations were not merely "copies" of one another. They were continued iterations and revisions over different time frames. Some of which were based on the advent of differing chemistry available to the market, some were variants of different approaches, etc. They weren't "copies". If I process an image from RAW this year using LR and three years from now I process using DXO and process differently (more contrast vs. less contrast vs. more saturation vs. less saturation, more D&B, etc.) then they are also NOT COPIES, they are iterative, variant versions.
Pre-digital we had basically the options of using standard processes, by sending our work to the lab and having the lab do their thing, to the standard process, consistently.
Or, if we wanted something custom, we had to work with the lab until we got what we wanted. Or, we went into the darkroom and did the custom work ourselves.
Fast forward ... we now have the choice to use any number of "canned" profiles, but the plethora of those does not suggest anything "standard" ... except that we might choose to be consistent in our choices (i.e. Adobe Portrait). Beyond that, we have inherently kicked the lab to the curb, and everyone is their own lab. The degree to which they approach with a standard or consistency vs. random / custom / iterative is inherently widespread. For some, we develop our own "custom" or "signature" profiles for such consistency. But, even still ... revisiting a raw file 3, 5 or 10 years later and reprocessing is not likely to be a "copy" of the first go with it.
That said, if all we are doing is hitting the "reprint" button, then yes the similarities will be great and the differences small. But, that's not to suggest that just because it is digital, they will be the same. Sure, print the same file, and you'll get the same "copy". But, that's not what Moonrise was about ... it was a journey to his vision, not merely a copy with uncontrolled variations. Two different things, imo ... not to be confused / presented as the same thing.
|
.
...
... indeed, I misread that. 
